National Security Agency whistleblower William Binney reveals he believes domestic surveillance has become more expansive under President Obama than President George W. Bush. He estimates the NSA has assembled 20 trillion 'transactions' — phone calls, emails and other forms of data — from Americans. This likely includes copies of almost all of the emails sent and received from most people living in the United States.

Political and Corporate Corruption DOES serve the Interests of "Extremists" -- such as, e.g., (Anarchist !!!) Julian Assange (!!!) ...

That is not least of the Reasons I prefer dealing with Corruption via PROPER (LEGAL; Political) Channels, precisely SO THAT the Extremists (like Assange) are NOT able to USE such Problems as EXCUSES for THEIR mis-Deeds ... EXACTLY so ... !!!

Corruption on the highest political level, serving the interests of extremists.

If Judge O’Grady is to be believed all this damage could very well have been for nothing because the authorities simply can’t serve foreign companies. This could lead one to wonder whether the whole setup was to simply destroy Mega’s businesses.

This is certainly a theory Dotcom subscribes to, and it’s not the only dirty trick Megaupload’s founder believes the US Government is playing. The US is structurally denying Megaupload the chance to put up a fair fight.

“We are refused access to the evidence that clears us, we are refused funds to pay our lawyers, we are refused to pick the lawyers we want to represent us and have any chance for a fair trial,” Dotcom says.

The NSA TRACKING (and ANALYSIS) of Communications resulted in the Tracking-Down of Osama bin Laden (which I AFFIRM as a GOOD Thing ... !!!) by use of selecting-out and attending certain key Words and Phrases in intercepted Communications ...

But ... Yes ...

I have had a personal Experience during the last ten Years which has led me to conclude that The NSA-CIA was indeed interested in MY personal e-Mail Communication with a professional Colleague in Iran ... But, no ... The Result HASN'T been a Black Helicopter hovering over my Neighborhood, and (thus far, Thank God !!!) I haven't been whisked-away to Gitmo to be Water-Boarded by Dick Cheney, and I doubt that such will ever happen ...

"Wiki-Leaks"-induced Paranoia ISN'T helpful or realistic (and it ISN'T going to help Julian Assange defend himself in Sweden, either ... He should just "get REAL" and start using CONDOMS, IMHO ...)

National Security Agency whistleblower William Binney reveals he believes domestic surveillance has become more expansive under President Obama than President George W. Bush. He estimates the NSA has assembled 20 trillion 'transactions' — phone calls, emails and other forms of data — from Americans. This likely includes copies of almost all of the emails sent and received from most people living in the United States.

So what is an inhibited person? It’s not a term used by Australian agencies. But Dean Procter on Twitter directed me to an agency that does use it — the Department of Homeland Security. According to one of DHS’s operating manuals for airlines,

“Travelers receiving an inhibited response must be further vetted prior to receiving a boarding pass authorization. The response message returned will provide a contact number that must be called to determine if a resolution can be accomplished.”

That sounds exactly like what happened to Robinson. Another DHS document says:

“‘Inhibited status’, as defined in this rule, means the status of a passenger or non-traveling individual to whom TSA has instructed a covered aircraft operator or a covered airport operator not to issue a boarding pass or to provide access to the sterile area.”

In March, as part of the US government’s seemingly remorseless attempt to impose its laws on the rest of the world, the UK agreed tonew rules that required airlines to provide the Department of Homeland Security with details of passengers even if they weren’t travelling to the United States, but to countries near the US, such as Canada, Mexico and Cuba.

Robinson, plainly, was going to none of those. But it raises an interesting scenario for when Robinson next seeks to travel to the US.

DFAT yesterday said it knew nothing of what happened. ABC journalist Jeff Waters last night contacted a spokesman for the UK Border Agency, who denied that they had stopped Robinson.

Which leaves the airline, Virgin. But the only circumstances in which an airline would stop a passenger in the manner Robinson was stopped is if she was not a citizen of the country she was flying to and there was a risk the airline would have to return her to her point of origin if she was refused entry, costing the airline money.

Plainly a government agency is either lying or knows far more than they are letting on.

But because of the tangled web of responsibility for international travel, it’s impossible to do more than speculate. Different agencies within government, different government, and private companies all have different but related functions. It’s a particularly egregious example of how governments can deflect responsibility and scrutiny because decision-making is outsourced into a nebulous mix of systems and separate decision-makers, leaving no one person or agency ultimately responsible. And international air travel has long since become a Kafkaesque mix of security theatre, institutionalised paranoia and irrational bureaucracy in which any semblance of logic is not merely dismissed but might even be considered a threat.

This outsourcing of responsibility enables governments and politicians in particular to operate with complete deniability. Ministers, who used to be considered responsible for what happened in their portfolios, can place their hands on their hearts and swear they know nothing, that they have sought advice and that it is nothing to do with them.

Meantime, lawyers, activists… hell, let’s call them what they are,troublemakers — get harassed without anyone with any authority having to front up and accept responsibility. It’s all part of the constant process of delegitimising dissent.

So what is an inhibited person? It’s not a term used by Australian agencies. But Dean Procter on Twitter directed me to an agency that does use it — the Department of Homeland Security. According to one of DHS’s operating manuals for airlines,

“Travelers receiving an inhibited response must be further vetted prior to receiving a boarding pass authorization. The response message returned will provide a contact number that must be called to determine if a resolution can be accomplished.”

That sounds exactly like what happened to Robinson. Another DHS document says:

“‘Inhibited status’, as defined in this rule, means the status of a passenger or non-traveling individual to whom TSA has instructed a covered aircraft operator or a covered airport operator not to issue a boarding pass or to provide access to the sterile area.”

In March, as part of the US government’s seemingly remorseless attempt to impose its laws on the rest of the world, the UK agreed tonew rules that required airlines to provide the Department of Homeland Security with details of passengers even if they weren’t travelling to the United States, but to countries near the US, such as Canada, Mexico and Cuba.

Robinson, plainly, was going to none of those. But it raises an interesting scenario for when Robinson next seeks to travel to the US.

DFAT yesterday said it knew nothing of what happened. ABC journalist Jeff Waters last night contacted a spokesman for the UK Border Agency, who denied that they had stopped Robinson.

Which leaves the airline, Virgin. But the only circumstances in which an airline would stop a passenger in the manner Robinson was stopped is if she was not a citizen of the country she was flying to and there was a risk the airline would have to return her to her point of origin if she was refused entry, costing the airline money.

Plainly a government agency is either lying or knows far more than they are letting on.

But because of the tangled web of responsibility for international travel, it’s impossible to do more than speculate. Different agencies within government, different government, and private companies all have different but related functions. It’s a particularly egregious example of how governments can deflect responsibility and scrutiny because decision-making is outsourced into a nebulous mix of systems and separate decision-makers, leaving no one person or agency ultimately responsible. And international air travel has long since become a Kafkaesque mix of security theatre, institutionalised paranoia and irrational bureaucracy in which any semblance of logic is not merely dismissed but might even be considered a threat.

This outsourcing of responsibility enables governments and politicians in particular to operate with complete deniability. Ministers, who used to be considered responsible for what happened in their portfolios, can place their hands on their hearts and swear they know nothing, that they have sought advice and that it is nothing to do with them.

Meantime, lawyers, activists… hell, let’s call them what they are,troublemakers — get harassed without anyone with any authority having to front up and accept responsibility. It’s all part of the constant process of delegitimising dissent.

What Julian does with WikiLeaks is not only right, it is morally right, it is ethically right and, as I’ll explain this evening, it is legally right.

I was asked at a seminar earlier this week, how is it that you do what you do defending him? It must be so stressful. You are under surveillance. You have a lot of these threats made, which I don’t go into publicly.

And my response was, how do you think it is for him? Imagine what he is going through. And the reason he keeps doing what he does and does so bravely is because he knows he’s right.

His colleagues at WikiLeaks stand by him because they know he’s right. And I continue to defend him because I know he’s right.

And all of you here — and I’m glad Scott [Ludlum] said that — I hope the people watching this online can understand just how full this room is, all of you here are here because you know it’s right to support him and to support WikiLeaks.

What Julian does with WikiLeaks is not only right, it is morally right, it is ethically right and, as I’ll explain this evening, it is legally right.

I was asked at a seminar earlier this week, how is it that you do what you do defending him? It must be so stressful. You are under surveillance. You have a lot of these threats made, which I don’t go into publicly.

And my response was, how do you think it is for him? Imagine what he is going through. And the reason he keeps doing what he does and does so bravely is because he knows he’s right.

His colleagues at WikiLeaks stand by him because they know he’s right. And I continue to defend him because I know he’s right.

And all of you here — and I’m glad Scott [Ludlum] said that — I hope the people watching this online can understand just how full this room is, all of you here are here because you know it’s right to support him and to support WikiLeaks.

Well, I shall never say a bad word about US justice or any other country for that matter after reading how Australian gov. treated one of its own citizens. And he ws Australian born. Had he been a migrant from politically unacceptable country, that would have come in quite handy to tar him somehow. There is no excuise!*